Debates Might Make All The Difference

Whether debates influence elections is being hotly, well, debated. This year, they well may.

A lackluster job by President Barack Obama in the Oct. 3 debate gave Republican Mitt Romney his first polling lead in a year — four points in the Pew Research poll. Mr. Romney's downward spiral may have been stopped by that debate.

Here at home, Democrat Chris Murphy opened up a five-point lead over Republican Linda McMahon in the tight U.S. Senate race after the Oct. 7 debate on WFSB-TV, according to pollster Rasmussen. Before the debate, Mrs. McMahon had a one-point lead in the Quinnipiac Poll.

They meet again Monday night at the Garde Arts Center in New London, hosted by The Day and WTNH-TV 8, four days after debating at Jorgensen Auditorium at the University of Connecticut, hosted by FOX CT / Hartford Courant, UConn and the Connecticut Daily Newspapers Association.

Debates let candidates make their case directly to voters rather than through the filter of reporters, ads or mailers. Do they decide elections, though? The consensus of studies is that their effect is, as one said, "fragile." But to quote conservative columnist David Frum, "After this election, we may need to retire a lot of political science."

The vacillating polls in the presidential and Senate races suggest a number of voters are still on the fence. This state has more unaffiliated voters than registered Democrats or Republicans. Debates are a great service to unaffiliateds as they weigh philosophies, command of issues, likability (important in a club like the Senate), and how well candidates perform under fire and on esoteric topics such as sequestration.

If they don't change already made-up minds, debates at least force party loyalists to listen to a different view. Given the bitterly partisan divide in Congress, hearing the other side can't hurt.